4.7 Article

The Clinical Effects of Pixel CO2 Laser on Bladder Neck and Stress Urinary Incontinence

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 17, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11174971

Keywords

Pixel CO2 laser; bladder neck; stress urinary incontinence; perineal sonography

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [MOST 1102629-B-037-001-MY3]
  2. Kaohsiung Medical University [KMUHS-11012]
  3. Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital [KMUH107-7R40]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the efficacy of Pixel CO2 laser for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The results showed significant improvement in SUI symptoms with vaginal Pixel CO2 laser treatment, indicating its effectiveness and safety.
Background: Our study aims to assess Pixel CO2 laser efficacy for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Methods: In the study, 25 women with SUI were included and scheduled for vaginal Pixel CO2 Laser (FemiLift (TM), Alma Lasers, Israel) treatment. All subjects had a baseline and 6-month post-treatment assessment that included three-dimensional perineal ultrasound and validated questionnaires. Results: Data showed that monthly three-session vaginal Pixel CO2 Laser treatment significantly improved SUI symptoms, as evidenced by validated questionnaires, including UDI-6, IIQ-7, ICIQ, and vaginal laxity questionnaire (p < 0.05). The Pixel CO2 Laser efficacy in vaginal treatment was 20/25 (80%), and the perineal sonography showed that laser treatment significantly decreased bladder neck mobility and middle urethral area (during resting and straining). Permanent adverse events were not found. Conclusions: The results of our study suggested that for the treatment of mild to moderate SUI symptoms, Pixel CO2 Laser is effective and safe; however, more studies and a longer follow-up should be conducted to confirm its efficacy and durability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available